|
|
Zu
den Zeitungsartikeln hier klicken Zu dem Press Scan
Archiv
Hot
und News Press Scans
English translation
Human
Rights Report 2004
Swaziland: King's government violates human
rights
The government of King Mswati III urgently needs to
resolve the constitutional and human rights crisis that has left the country
without a Court of Appeal since 2002 and undermines the government's new
international human rights obligations. In a report published today, Swaziland: Human
rights at risk in a climate of political and legal uncertainty,
Amnesty International shows how the government's contempt for court rulings and
judicial independence has denied people effective legal redress and has allowed
impunity for perpetrators of human rights violations. Despite Swaziland
becoming a State Party to four key human rights treaties between April and June
2004, there is a wide gap between promises and practices in the southern African
country. "Swaziland must back up its recent commitments to international
human rights standards by re-establishing the rule of law and confronting the
systematic violation of civil, political, economic and social rights. These
steps are also essential to addressing the country's profound humanitarian
crisis", Amnesty International said. The abuses of human rights
documented in the report include:
- Failure to investigate and prosecute those responsible for torture and
deaths in custody and abusive policing involving the use of excessive force;
- Denial of the rights of freedom of association and peaceful assembly to
those perceived as government critics;
- Undermining of the role of courts in protecting the rights of women and
girls against forced marriages, including by members of the Royal Family;
- Failure to protect women and girls against rape and other forms of sexual
violence which has contributed to Swaziland having the highest HIV prevalence in
the world;
- Politically-motivated forced evictions without the right to effective legal
redress, resulting in violation of the victims' rights to livelihood, shelter,
education and health.
"The people who were supposed to protect us came
and broke down everything and took away everything...We were all driven
away...The government uses nice words to describe what happened, they don't like
to hear the word "eviction" , but that is what it was, a forceful
eviction". An evictee from Macetjeni in the Lubombo region of Swaziland
speaking to Amnesty International in July 2003. "The Swaziland government
must put an end to all human rights violations and ensure that the country's
existing and new obligations under international human rights law are guaranteed
by upholding the rule of law and entrenched in the new constitution," Amnesty
International said. Background In 1996 King Mswati III
appointed a Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) to draft a new constitution.
In August 2001, after a much criticised process, the CRC presented a report
which asserted that "the Swazi nation" preferred no change to the political and
legal arrangements which had been in place since the suspension of the
Constitution in 1973. In 2002, the King appointed the Constitution
Drafting Committee (CDC) to finish the CRC's work by actually drafting a new
constitution. In May 2003 the King made public the CDC's draft constitution. The
CDC subsequently led a public consultation process on the draft, which is still
continuing. (Amnesty International's detailed analysis of the draft constitution
is included in the report.) On 26 April 2004, Swaziland became a State
Party to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women and the UN Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. On 26 June,
Swaziland became a State Party to two other key human rights treaties: the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. For a copy of the full
report, Swaziland: Human rights at risk in a climate of political and legal
uncertainty, please go to:
Report
in Deutsch finden sie hier:
Human
Rights Report 2003
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour 2004 Swaziland is
a modified traditional monarchy with executive, legis lative, and limited
judicial powers ultimately vested in the King (Mswati III). In 2003 the King ruled according to unwritten law and custom, in
conjunction with a partially elected parliament and an accompanying structure of
published laws and implementing agencies. The 2001 (sic) municipal elections and
parliamentary elections during the year increased representative government;
however, political power continued to rest largely with the King and his circle
of traditional advisors, including the Queen Mother. The judiciary was generally
independent; however, the King exerted certain judicial powers, and High Court
judges struggled to resist pressure to yield any powers to those outside the
judiciary. Both the Umbutfo Swaziland Defence Force and the Royal
Swaziland Police operate under civilian control and are responsible for external
and internal security. Some communities questioned the ability of the National
Police to operate effectively at the community level and have formed community
police. Members of both the National Police and the community police
committed human rights abuses. The country had a free market
economy, with relatively little government intervention; its
population was approximately 1.1 million. The majority of citizens were engaged
in subsistence agriculture and the informal marketing of agricultural goods,
although a relatively diversified industrial sector accounted for the largest
component of the formal economy. The country depended heavily on South Africa,
from which it received almost all of its imports and to which it sent the
majority of its exports. A quasi-parastatal organisation established by royal
charter, and responsible to the King, maintained large investments in major
sectors of the economy, including industry, agriculture, and services, and
required partnership with foreign investors and international development
agencies. The Government’s human rights record was poor, and it
continued to commit serious abuses. Citizens were not able to change their
government peacefully. Police used excessive force on some occasions, and there
were reports that police tortured and beat some suspects. Impunity was a
problem. The Government infringed on citizen’s privacy rights.
The Government continued to limit freedom of speech and of the press.
The Government restricted freedom of assembly and association and
prohibited political activity, although numerous political groupings operated
openly and voiced opinions critical of the Government. The police on several
occasions harassed political activists. There were some limits on freedom
of movement. Legal and cultural discrimination, violence against women,
and abuse of children remained problems. Some societal discrimination against
mixed race and white citizens persisted. Worker rights remained limited.
Trafficking in persons occurred.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section
1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From: a.
Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life There were no reports of the
arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life by the Government or its agents.
There were no developments in the 2001 police killing of a 20-year-old
man,or the 2001 death by poisoning in police custody of two
20-year-olds. b. Disappearance There were no reports of
politically motivated disappearances. c. Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment The law does not
specifically prohibit such practices, although under the Prison’s Act
correctional facility officers may be prosecuted if they engage in such
practices; however, there were reports that government officials employed them.
There were credible reports by criminal defendants that the security forces used
torture during interrogation and abused their authority by assaulting citizens
and using excessive force in carrying out their duties. For example, in August,
police reportedly beat a member of the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions
(SFTU) following his arrest during a legal protest action. Police
sometimes beat criminal suspects and occasionally used the
“tube”style of interrogation, in which police suffocate suspects through the use
of a rubber tube around the face and mouth. According to unofficial reports,
police still used the Kentucky method of interrogation in which the arms and
legs of suspects are bent and tied together with rope or chain, then the person
is beaten. There was no action taken against members of the security
forces responsible for the 2002 beating of a woman accused of theft.
Police also banned and forcibly dispersed demonstrations (see Section
2.b.). Prison conditions generally met international standards; however,
there were reports that torture, lack of basic hygiene, and unsafe sexual
practices were spreading HIV/AIDS among the prisoners. Government detention
centres remained overcrowded, and conditions were generally poor. The use of
non-bailable provisions resulted in the continued overcrowding and other
unfavourable conditions in government detention centres where suspects were held
during pre-trial detention (see Section 1.d.). Women were held in
separate prison facilities; however, at times children (age 3
and under) of female inmates lived with their mothers in the women’s prison. A
November press report alleged that male guards forced female prisoners into sex.
The Government routinely permitted prison visits by diplomats,
journalists, human rights monitors, and representatives of international
organizations. During the year, the local Red Cross visited several prisons.
Report
in Deutsch finden sie hier:
Gehen sie zum Seitenanfang
Webmaster und Impressum: Lauer, 6, Maple
Road, Amanzimtoti 4126, KwaZulu Natal, Republic of South Africa E-Mail:celemasiko(at)gmx.de
Copyright 2003 -
2005 von Peter Lauer und Nachfolger |